I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
I don't know if you remember the mid 90's. From about 1993, the Major government did a pretty reasonable job of governing, hence the Golden Economic Legacy. It wasn't pretty politically, but it was decent governance. The 1997 manifesto was full of stuff to tickle Tory tummies. And it did them precisely zero good in the election. One you've blown trust, you're a zombie. You might be moving, but you're dead.
Yes, spot on. By recent standards, the John Major period was outstandingly competent governance. Did them no good whatsoever.
Not only has Johnson thrown away trust and goodwill, he is also fundamentally incompetent. The Tories are going to get crushed unless they have a clean sweep, and soon. There must be some half-decent talent in the recent intakes?
The hit on the opinion poll Conservative ratings may be a long slide as happened following Black Wednesday: it took 6 months for the full polling scale to show. I expect Labour to take the lead in the next 3 months.
Wrong, John Smith took a poll lead over the Tories almost as soon as he was elected leader, Labour was ahead in the polls even before Black Wednesday
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
She is being criticised (e.g. she gave the strong impression in the Spectator that the family isolated in London, and retweeted stuff about staying at home).
But she isn't the PM's chief advisor. She's some rather silly wannabee journalist.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Yes, that's absolutely right. I would have disregarded the lockdown if I had thought it in my child'sbest interests to do so AND there would be minimal risk to others. I'm far from sure his action makes sense however. Seem illogical and even a little heartless.
Was he really thinking of the kid, or himself?
Question - how old are Mr Cummings parents?
Old enough to be in a higher risk category than Dom.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Yes, that's absolutely right. I would have disregarded the lockdown if I had thought it in my child'sbest interests to do so AND there would be minimal risk to others. I'm far from sure his action makes sense however. Seem illogical and even a little heartless.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
Because she couldn't be by herself so if Dom travelled she also needed to travel.
So you're suggesting that not wanting to be by herself was a reasonable excuse for leaving her home and travelling to Durham?
I mean in legal terms according to the COVID-19 regulations governing when people could leave their homes.
You really think that?
I have just discovered that my local MP while displaying symptoms travelled home from London (home is not in our constituency as he has a hideous house outside York).
If and when I catch him (he's avoiding social media) I will ask if he travelled by car or by train (as he usually does).
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
If that happens then Tory Leave voters will defect an masse to the Brexit Party.
Yougov has a narrow majority of Tory voters thinking Cummings should not resign but the vast majority of Tory voters saying the transition period should not be extended
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
I'm not saying it is a good idea, but the way to avoid this is to require that both Scotland and England vote for change.
There was an example of this in Germany in the 90's. Brandenburg is the state encircling Berlin and is totally dependent on Berlin economcally. There was a referendum as to whether the two states should merge. The Berlin residents, who did not have much to gain voted for a merger by a comfortable margin, but Brandenburg residents voted against. The combined vote was in favour but becase Brandenburg voted against, it didn't happen.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
I remember that just over a month ago my father died in his care home, and that we had not been able to visit him for weeks.
I don’t think any of the family will forget that quickly.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
Who would want to be a one term MP looking for work in May 2024 in the midst ofthe most catastrophic peace time financial collapse the world has ever seen?
I know we are supposed to be optimistic in Boris land but it is an extremely optmistic position to take, especially after his fiasco of a press conference made it even worse.
If there is no good path from following through with this, whats the point of it?
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Simple solution for people who value loyalty above all else. Get a dog.
Nah, they'd still call me a Nazi - Hitler had a dog, you see...
I don't think anyone thinks you are a Nazi; hypnotised possibly, but not a Nazi.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
59% of English voters back the Union, only 19% of English voters back Scottish independence
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
Because she couldn't be by herself so if Dom travelled she also needed to travel.
So you're suggesting that not wanting to be by herself was a reasonable excuse for leaving her home and travelling to Durham?
I mean in legal terms according to the COVID-19 regulations governing when people could leave their homes.
You really think that?
I have just discovered that my local MP while displaying symptoms travelled home from London (home is not in our constituency as he has a hideous house outside York).
Was that before the rules (and so just showing a total lack of consideration) or after they came in? And did he go by train?
I've been surprised there is no discussion of a (technically) rather higher party than Mr C who travelled even further than he did when symptomatic. But I can't remember what the regulations were at that time.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
The same police force that has already be accused by No 10 of lying?
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
59% of English voters back the Union, only 19% of English voters back Scottish independence
As I said yesterday evening, history will record this weekend as the moment Johnson lost 2024.
Remember @DavidHerdson’s very acute article last week. If Boris Johnson looks like a loser, he’ll be given the heave-ho. And this failure is a very personal one. Sir Keir needs to think not just about how he’ll fight Boris Johnson but how he’d fight any successor.
Very good point. That's where the Tories went wrong, they didn't think any further than attacking Corbyn. I'm not sure it has fully dawned on the yet how much the game has changed.
The other problem the Tories have is that Boris undoubtedly reached voters that other Tories don't. It's hard to believe May only just defeated Corbyn.
They have a real dilemma in that their best vote-winnert is unfortunately for them (and us) a lazy incompetent leader.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
You have forgotten the polling on how popular dumping the Scots and Nirish is with English Tory Party members. A lot more than one might expect.
It isn't, they just prefer Brexit to the Union on a forced choice.
However they would prefer following Spain in Catalonia and Rajoy and banning indyref2 outright while still delivering Brexit as their ideal position, so no such forced choice needed.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Blind, unthinking loyalty is what gives support to organisations like the NSDAP, It is why criticism is so important. Without the acceptance of criticism - or with its suppression - there is no counter to unacceptable actions, no way of saying that the line has been crossed.
Without criticism to act as a restraint, blind, partisan loyalty leads to more and more extreme actions.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Yes, that's absolutely right. I would have disregarded the lockdown if I had thought it in my child'sbest interests to do so AND there would be minimal risk to others. I'm far from sure his action makes sense however. Seem illogical and even a little heartless.
Was he really thinking of the kid, or himself?
Question - how old are Mr Cummings parents?
The childcare was from his sister not his parents.
The property is described as a four-bedroomed detached house. Cummings's wife described them having access to the kitchen.
I am very sceptical about the claim that the Cummingses were in a separate house, and about the idea there was a third house available for the sister to take care of the child without endangering the parents.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
59% of English voters back the Union, only 19% of English voters back Scottish independence
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
The issue eventually becomes not the travelling but the inability to sensible deal with it.
As pointed out below the actual answer was a resignation letter that couldn't be accepted at the moment.
An amusing little post there, ScottP, earning a rare Like from me, but there's a serious point which is quite close to home.
Since we have quaffed the occasional pint together you will be aware how young and vigorous I look and how swiftly and nimbly I move about, particulalrly when collecting money from bookmakers. I am however approaching my 73rd year. Am I to be classed amongst the vulnerable, or should I use my instincts to assess my vulnerability?
Goodness they're thick. You'd think one of them had heard of the Streisand effect.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
Why are the spineless Tory Ministers even bothering now? It's become a farce! Where is @malcolmg when you need to him to sum up the moronic Tories?
Been busy working up till now, we don't get all these public holidays you soft southerners get, you have us shoulder to the wheel making money for you whilst you are at the beach. What can I say about the lying scumbag Tories, the great fat one has publicly displayed that they are the devil incarnate, devious, sleazy, snake oil salesmen devoid of humanity and principles except to their own little coterie. Roll out the Tumbrils.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
The issue eventually becomes not the travelling but the inability to sensible deal with it.
As pointed out below the actual answer was a resignation letter that couldn't be accepted at the moment.
Instead Boris looks weak...
Wales voted Leave just like England and unlike Scotland.
Northern Ireland and Wales also have Unionist First Ministers unlike Scotland too
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
If that happens then Tory Leave voters will defect an masse to the Brexit Party.
Yougov has a narrow majority of Tory voters thinking Cummings should not resign but the vast majority of Tory voters saying the transition period should not be extended
That's exactly what will happen, with the return of Farage a certainty and the whole merry go round will start again
Remember, the most important thing is not good government of proven probity, it is "Triggering the Libs"
Has anyone in this country ever said that brain-dead phrase?
Annoying all the right people is trotted out with tiresome regularity.
Everyone on all sides tries to wind up the opposition sometimes.
Triggering the Libs is a particularly brain-dead Americanism. Anyone who said that in this country would instantly be someone whom I could not respect.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
59% of English voters back the Union, only 19% of English voters back Scottish independence
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
My country right or wrong, my mother drunk or sober.....
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
Again - my question is not what you or anyone else would have done.
Because some people are trying to defend Cummings on a very narrow legal point that he may not have broken the letter of the law, I am asking whether there was any legal justification for his wife travelling. In terms of the letter of the law.
No one seems able to suggest anything at all. You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
I wonder if all these Tory MPs think that all they have to do is express their view that Cummings needs to go. I think we’re past that point and Boris is fully committed to Dom; there’s no turning back now.
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
Since we have quaffed the occasional pint together you will be aware how young and vigorous I look and how swiftly and nimbly I move about, particulalrly when collecting money from bookmakers. I am however approaching my 73rd year. Am I to be classed amongst the vulnerable, or should I use my instincts to assess my vulnerability?
Yes. Obviously...
Feel free to repair to your country estate. If that is your instinct.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
The issue eventually becomes not the travelling but the inability to sensible deal with it.
As pointed out below the actual answer was a resignation letter that couldn't be accepted at the moment.
Instead Boris looks weak...
Wales voted Leave just like England and unlike Scotland.
Northern Ireland and Wales also have Unionist First Ministers unlike Scotland too
What has that got to do with Cummings's travel arrangements?
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
Lol, nice try.
No, he needs to be bolder.
Build Boris Island. Move Hong Kong to it.
What could be more bold than English independence? Certainly not a minor (by modern standards) civil engineering project like an artificial island or a high speed railway.
It needs to be something that will stand out in the great sweep of world history. Regaining the independence of England, one of the stand-out countries in world history, would be a master stroke.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
Again - my question is not what you or anyone else would have done.
Because some people are trying to defend Cummings on a very narrow legal point that he may not have broken the letter of the law, I am asking whether there was any legal justification for his wife travelling. In terms of the letter of the law.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
If that happens then Tory Leave voters will defect an masse to the Brexit Party.
Yougov has a narrow majority of Tory voters thinking Cummings should not resign but the vast majority of Tory voters saying the transition period should not be extended
On the radio interview I referred to Hunt said he wouldn’t have delivered an 80 seat majority like Boris did. It was rather a backhanded compliment as he followed it up by saying “because Farage wouldn’t have stepped aside for me in Tory held seats”
Can’t believe they made Scott set his alarm AGAIN on a Bank Holiday to post tweets in a doomed cause.
Tough break Scott.
What doomed cause is this? I'm genuinely baffled by that term!
To get Dom - in revenge for Brexit.
That’s all this is about - in the end.
Bollocks.
Any person with a half a brain cell knows what this is about, to deny it is childish.
Tom Harwood just gave the true account of what is happening
What, because nobody could seriously mind about tens of thousands of unnecessary, and unnecessarily unpleasant, deaths? It must be a pretext? You sound like Labour party members saying the antisemitism claims were really about something else because, let's face it, lads, nobody seriously objects to having a bit of a laugh at the expense of the the four-by-twos. Some things are about what they look as if they are about.
Support for Cummings/Boris is really down to the hard core of Trumpton- fake news types
I wonder if all these Tory MPs think that all they have to do is express their view that Cummings needs to go. I think we’re past that point and Boris is fully committed to Dom; there’s no turning back now.
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
January 2021 is my guess, any odds for that anywhere?
Who would want to be a one term MP looking for work in May 2024 in the midst ofthe most catastrophic peace time financial collapse the world has ever seen?
I'd imagine most of them will be desperately hoping Dom gets the sack without having to stick their heads above the parapet. @Tissue_Price is focussing on local heroes
I wonder if all these Tory MPs think that all they have to do is express their view that Cummings needs to go. I think we’re past that point and Boris is fully committed to Dom; there’s no turning back now.
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
And I think the view from those MPs is that might be a solution they could live with...
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
3 in the morning is because they probably left after supper with their folks to beat the traffic
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
I'm not saying it is a good idea, but the way to avoid this is to require that both Scotland and England vote for change.
There was an example of this in Germany in the 90's. Brandenburg is the state encircling Berlin and is totally dependent on Berlin economcally. There was a referendum as to whether the two states should merge. The Berlin residents, who did not have much to gain voted for a merger by a comfortable margin, but Brandenburg residents voted against. The combined vote was in favour but becase Brandenburg voted against, it didn't happen.
Thank you - that's interesting, and I hadn't known about it.
The dissolution of Czechoslovakia is also interesting - only a minority voted in each country-to-be, but they went ahead anyway as it seemed inevitable, or so I read.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
If that happens then Tory Leave voters will defect an masse to the Brexit Party.
Yougov has a narrow majority of Tory voters thinking Cummings should not resign but the vast majority of Tory voters saying the transition period should not be extended
On the radio interview I referred to Hunt said he wouldn’t have delivered an 80 seat majority like Boris did. It was rather a backhanded compliment as he followed it up by saying “because Farage wouldn’t have stepped aside for me in Tory held seats”
Hunt was correct, had he been Tory leader he would not have won the Northern and Midlands and Welsh Leave seats Boris did.
Had Hunt been leader the 2019 general election would likely have been a repeat of 2017, Tories largest party but without a majority
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
Even with the bollox story being a complete lie , relatives nearby etc he is an arsehole and anyone who thinks they would copy it can draw the same conclusion, selfish arsehole.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
3 in the morning is because they probably left after supper with their folks to beat the traffic
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
Well - and we`re all guessing in the absence of facts obviously - I`d say that with one spouse positive and poorly, the other worried about catching it, 3/4 year old possibly autistic, parent`s house large enough to isolate seperately whilst child is looked after by familiar faces, self-isolate family along the way in car (assuming sufficient fuel for the drive).
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
Again - my question is not what you or anyone else would have done.
Because some people are trying to defend Cummings on a very narrow legal point that he may not have broken the letter of the law, I am asking whether there was any legal justification for his wife travelling. In terms of the letter of the law.
No one seems able to suggest anything at all.
I believe there is a provision for "exceptional circumstances" which is woolly I know - perhaps deliberately so.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Blind, unthinking loyalty is what gives support to organisations like the NSDAP, It is why criticism is so important. Without the acceptance of criticism - or with its suppression - there is no counter to unacceptable actions, no way of saying that the line has been crossed.
Without criticism to act as a restraint, blind, partisan loyalty leads to more and more extreme actions.
Elegantly put, but even so there remains a spectrum of commitment to loyalty, with each individual having their own personal breaking point at a different place than others. My personal breaking point takes a long time to be reached, others drop their personal bonds like a hot potato at the first minor transgression. It's human beings, innit?
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Simple solution for people who value loyalty above all else. Get a dog.
Nah, they'd still call me a Nazi - Hitler had a dog, you see...
Goodness they're thick. You'd think one of them had heard of the Streisand effect.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
They have the old "stay home" logo on them so it makes sense they would be removed.
Quite a few Tory MPs have still said precisely nothing about all this. This includes my own MP, just elected for the first time in a solid northern Tory seat.
Yes, I'm in a Tory held seat in southern Scotland. Won't be holding my breath, as our particular donkey in a blue rosette barely knows what day it is at the best of times.
Not the purple-faced one that looks like he needs AA membership?
I wonder if all these Tory MPs think that all they have to do is express their view that Cummings needs to go. I think we’re past that point and Boris is fully committed to Dom; there’s no turning back now.
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
January 2021 is my guess, any odds for that anywhere?
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
3 in the morning is because they probably left after supper with their folks to beat the traffic
It makes perfect sense to travel at night so their child was asleep in the car the whole way so they would not have to stop.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
Goodness they're thick. You'd think one of them had heard of the Streisand effect.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
They have the old "stay home" logo on them so it makes sense they would be removed.
Yes, but doing it today looks absolutely terrible.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
I'm fairly certain we all remember the headlines of a month ago. An issue that isn't "going away" and one that will damage the party for a generation.
"Care Home Coronavirus Deaths Top 4,000"
Is anyone talking about care homes today? No, they're all too busy frothing about a single SpaD to give a damn. And in a month they'll be frothing about something else. That's the nature of the news cycle and the human attention span.
Nope, any sensible journalist will be keeping the care home story prepared, ready for when this story has ran it's course.
If you think this is hiding the care home story you are in for a hell of a surprise.
I pointed yesterday to the File on 4 report on it. Quite devastating. (I think only @Richard_Tyndall noticed.) The rest of the media will catch up.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
3 in the morning is because they probably left after supper with their folks to beat the traffic
I thought they were isolating from their folks. You Tories need to get your story straight.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
What went wrong at the GE?
Brexit Party
votes: 13,243 % of total: 0.5
Most Brexit Party voters went Tory or back to the SNP.
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
3 in the morning is because they probably left after supper with their folks to beat the traffic
I thought they were socially distancing from their folks and living in a shed or something?
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
Lol, nice try.
No, he needs to be bolder.
Build Boris Island. Move Hong Kong to it.
What could be more bold than English independence? Certainly not a minor (by modern standards) civil engineering project like an artificial island or a high speed railway.
It needs to be something that will stand out in the great sweep of world history. Regaining the independence of England, one of the stand-out countries in world history, would be a master stroke.
They have shown they are absolutely terrified of being independent. Their insecurity forcing them to try and ban Scotland even getting a vote on it, no way would they vote YES. They know the real numbers in Westminster and I bet they are far from what they present to us.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
Lol, nice try.
No, he needs to be bolder.
Build Boris Island. Move Hong Kong to it.
What could be more bold than English independence? Certainly not a minor (by modern standards) civil engineering project like an artificial island or a high speed railway.
It needs to be something that will stand out in the great sweep of world history. Regaining the independence of England, one of the stand-out countries in world history, would be a master stroke.
Boris made himself "Minister for the Union" when he became PM.
What I don't understand is why he didn't pour paeons of praise over Cummings - understanding his impulse as a father etc - but say that the Govt cannot afford distractions at a time like this and reluctantly accept his resignation. There would then have been some sympathy for Cummings and at some point probably quite soon, he could have returned to the fold. This is a well-trodden path - Mandelson, Patel, Rudd etc. Really don't understand.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
Comments
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Not only has Johnson thrown away trust and goodwill, he is also fundamentally incompetent. The Tories are going to get crushed unless they have a clean sweep, and soon. There must be some half-decent talent in the recent intakes?
Come on, TP, what do you have to say about this?!
But she isn't the PM's chief advisor. She's some rather silly wannabee journalist.
If and when I catch him (he's avoiding social media) I will ask if he travelled by car or by train (as he usually does).
At least Cummings travelled by car.
Using their instincts? 69 and 3/4
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
Yougov has a narrow majority of Tory voters thinking Cummings should not resign but the vast majority of Tory voters saying the transition period should not be extended
Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
There was an example of this in Germany in the 90's. Brandenburg is the state encircling Berlin and is totally dependent on Berlin economcally. There was a referendum as to whether the two states should merge. The Berlin residents, who did not have much to gain voted for a merger by a comfortable margin, but Brandenburg residents voted against. The combined vote was in favour but becase Brandenburg voted against, it didn't happen.
I don’t think any of the family will forget that quickly.
I don`t know. What really happened? Did he get permission upfront?
If my wife and I were in the same position as the above, what would we have done? I think we`d have travelled. Then again, I`m not a key figure in government. If I was I`d have taken care to bloody well check it out first.
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
If there is no good path from following through with this, whats the point of it?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html
I've been surprised there is no discussion of a (technically) rather higher party than Mr C who travelled even further than he did when symptomatic. But I can't remember what the regulations were at that time.
The other problem the Tories have is that Boris undoubtedly reached voters that other Tories don't. It's hard to believe May only just defeated Corbyn.
They have a real dilemma in that their best vote-winnert is unfortunately for them (and us) a lazy incompetent leader.
However they would prefer following Spain in Catalonia and Rajoy and banning indyref2 outright while still delivering Brexit as their ideal position, so no such forced choice needed.
The 2014 referendum was 'once in a generation'
Without criticism to act as a restraint, blind, partisan loyalty leads to more and more extreme actions.
I am very sceptical about the claim that the Cummingses were in a separate house, and about the idea there was a third house available for the sister to take care of the child without endangering the parents.
As pointed out below the actual answer was a resignation letter that couldn't be accepted at the moment.
Instead Boris looks weak...
Since we have quaffed the occasional pint together you will be aware how young and vigorous I look and how swiftly and nimbly I move about, particulalrly when collecting money from bookmakers. I am however approaching my 73rd year. Am I to be classed amongst the vulnerable, or should I use my instincts to assess my vulnerability?
Careful how you answer.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
What can I say about the lying scumbag Tories, the great fat one has publicly displayed that they are the devil incarnate, devious, sleazy, snake oil salesmen devoid of humanity and principles except to their own little coterie. Roll out the Tumbrils.
Northern Ireland and Wales also have Unionist First Ministers unlike Scotland too
Triggering the Libs is a particularly brain-dead Americanism. Anyone who said that in this country would instantly be someone whom I could not respect.
Wales and Northern Ireland have Unionist First Ministers unlike Scotland too
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
Feel free to repair to your country estate. If that is your instinct.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
"Look Squirrel" isn't going to work on me
It needs to be something that will stand out in the great sweep of world history. Regaining the independence of England, one of the stand-out countries in world history, would be a master stroke.
Because some people are trying to defend Cummings on a very narrow legal point that he may not have broken the letter of the law, I am asking whether there was any legal justification for his wife travelling. In terms of the letter of the law.
No one seems able to suggest anything at all.
https://twitter.com/BBCGaryR/status/1264802330953818112?s=20
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1264697295389392896
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2020/05/rolling-list-of-conservative-mps-whove-called-on-cummings-to-go.html
The dissolution of Czechoslovakia is also interesting - only a minority voted in each country-to-be, but they went ahead anyway as it seemed inevitable, or so I read.
Had Hunt been leader the 2019 general election would likely have been a repeat of 2017, Tories largest party but without a majority
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
Market 1 - year of PM’s departure. 4.3 available on 2021
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/multi-market?marketIds=1.160683973
Market 2 - quarterly market on date of PM’s departure. 19 available on Q1 2021.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/multi-market?marketIds=1.160740937
Brexit Party
votes: 13,243
% of total: 0.5
(I think only @Richard_Tyndall noticed.)
The rest of the media will catch up.
What I don't understand is why he didn't pour paeons of praise over Cummings - understanding his impulse as a father etc - but say that the Govt cannot afford distractions at a time like this and reluctantly accept his resignation. There would then have been some sympathy for Cummings and at some point probably quite soon, he could have returned to the fold. This is a well-trodden path - Mandelson, Patel, Rudd etc. Really don't understand.